Rave-Dave wrote:
Fred, will you still do the GM 16-35/2.8 @21mm infinity tests? I'm very curious how the zoom will compete against the Voigtlander!
Infinity Resolution/contrast comparison between CV 21/1.4 Nokton vs FE 16-35/2.8 GM
At 21mm, the GM zoom performs great but the Voigtlander does even better...
At f/2.8 (which is wide open for the zoom), it is excellent at center and towards the corners but can't keep up with the Voigtlander at smaller apertures (f/4 and smaller) across the field. (The zoom shows higher astigmatism and the corners do not improve much from wide open.
Here is a comparison at f/2.8:
Center at f/2.8: Slight higher resolution/contrast for the Voigtlander 21/1.4 @ f/2.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here are the 1:1 crops at f/4:
(Don't see much difference between the two lenses at f/5.6 and f/8 diffraction takes hold)
Interesting. So, at least in your copies of the lenses, would it be fair to conclude that at landscape apertures (f/5.6 and above), it's a wash between the CV21Nok and 16-35 at 21mm, at least as far as the "boring" aspects of IQ such as resolution, contrast, and astigmatism, particular in the corners? So decisions should be driven more by other aspects for landscapes (such as color and rendering), and how much off-center sharpness you want at f/4 and wider?
I'm very tempted by the CV, but I've come to love using the Sony bluetooth remote to help in focus stacking, and that needs AF! So trying to gauge how much IQ I will lose by going for a lens with AF (and the flexibility of a zoom for composition) ....
jeetsukumaran wrote:
Interesting. So, at least in your copies of the lenses, would it be fair to conclude that at landscape apertures (f/5.6 and above), it's a wash between the CV21Nok and 16-35 at 21mm, at least as far as the "boring" aspects of IQ such as resolution, contrast, and astigmatism, particular in the corners? So decisions should be driven more by other aspects for landscapes (such as color and rendering), and how much off-center sharpness you want at f/4 and wider?
I'm very tempted by the CV, but I've come to love using the Sony bluetooth remote to help in focus stacking, and that needs AF! So trying to gauge how much IQ I will lose by going for a lens with AF (and the flexibility of a zoom for composition) .... ...Show more →
It does not look like we lose much with the GM.
If the CV is that good or best available at 21mm which it appears to be and everyone is raving about it speaks highly of the GM zoom to come that close to it.
How many people even fairly knowledgable photographers would see a difference do you think if they were not pixel peeping?
How do you think from past experience the GM holds up at 16mm when compared to a 15mm CV and 24mm compared to the 24 GM?
Has anyone compared the new CV 21mm f/1.4 with the older M 21mm f/1.8? I know it can’t keep up given the praise for the new 21/1.4 but wondering how it’s rendering compared wide open especially.
jeetsukumaran wrote:
Interesting. So, at least in your copies of the lenses, would it be fair to conclude that at landscape apertures (f/5.6 and above), it's a wash between the CV21Nok and 16-35 at 21mm, at least as far as the "boring" aspects of IQ such as resolution, contrast, and astigmatism, particular in the corners? So decisions should be driven more by other aspects for landscapes (such as color and rendering), and how much off-center sharpness you want at f/4 and wider?
I'm very tempted by the CV, but I've come to love using the Sony bluetooth remote to help in focus stacking, and that needs AF! So trying to gauge how much IQ I will lose by going for a lens with AF (and the flexibility of a zoom for composition) .... ...Show more →
I thought the 16-35/2.8 GM's performance was formidable considering it's sharp from center to corner even wide open and was competing with one of the best 21mm primes on the market today. The Voigtlander has a small advantage in resolution and contrast but the GM competes neck and neck with it @f/2.8.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I thought the 16-35/2.8 GM's performance was formidable considering it's sharp from center to corner even wide open and was competing with one of the best 21mm primes on the market today. The Voigtlander has a small advantage in resolution and contrast but the GM competes neck and neck with it @f/2.8.
Both well-centered copies.
Thanks Fred with so many of us owning the GM it is nice to know and for anyone contemplating the 16-35GM. I have heard it is not at its best at 35mm care to comment?
It is such a versatile lens I consider it to be a must have for every bag and such a great walk around or part of a two or three lens kit.
trstahly wrote:
Thanks Fred with so many of us owning the GM it is nice to know and for anyone contemplating the 16-35GM. I have heard it is not at its best at 35mm care to comment?
It is such a versatile lens I consider it to be a must have for every bag and such a great walk around or part of a two or three lens kit.
Stopped down bit, I think the 16-35/2.8 GM looks great at 35mm. It performs noticeably better than the 16-35/4 ZA @35mm.
Of course primes will always have an edge, but the GM did well against the 35/2.8 ZA at f/5.6.
I've posted many comparisons here but it's tricky to find them as I didn't officially reviewed this lens.
I can confirm the 16-35GM is very good at 35mm and 2 stops closed. It is actually quite good at 2.8 concerning the central portion.
Today I took the CV21mm 1.4 out for a stroll and I created a flickr album for it. There are architecture and nature shots in them a few aperture series, shots up close and at infinity: Flickr_CV21_1.4 Album
Some examples:
All are available in full resolution (42MPx) on Flickr, shot on the A7RIII handheld. Postprocessing involved only highlight/shadow correction, remove CA was "off".
For me, this lens is a definite keeper, I love the color and the handling.
I can confirm the 16-35GM is very good at 35mm and 2 stops closed. It is actually quite good at 2.8 concerning the central portion.
Today I took the CV21mm 1.4 out for a stroll and I created a flickr album for it. There are architecture and nature shots in them a few aperture series, shots up close and at infinity: Flickr_CV21_1.4 Album
Some examples:
All are available in full resolution (42MPx) on Flickr, shot on the A7RIII handheld. Postprocessing involved only highlight/shadow correction, remove CA was "off".
For me, this lens is a definite keeper, I love the color and the handling.
Great samples!
Now we just need a modern Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton! (Similar to 35/1.4 ZM in IQ but designed for the E-mount)
Would much rather like to see a CV 28 1.4. I don't understand much about optic design but I don't think we will see such extrem numbers as 15mm 1.4 in the near future. Even the 21 1.4 is not well coma corrected wide open. But there already is a 14 1.8 so...Maybe I am wrong
I do not agree. The Loxia shows less CA, and less flare both important in landscape and it's quite a bit smaller and lighter ;-). I also personally prefer the Loxia renfering in the examples shown here. Regarding field curvature my Loxia shows very little sign of it, and less than seen here, but anyway, who shoots landscape at f/5.6? I certainly do not ;-)
Regarding detachment and attachment of the Loxia lens the difficulties are vastly exaggerated.
Best regards
David
trogdon wrote:
Pretty impressive how they managed to make a better landscape lens than the loxia 21mm, and keep it at a similar size but also 2 stops faster. The 21mm f3.5 is nice for the size and price, but didn’t seem like a great value versus a used Loxia. This on the other hand, is quite impressive!
I think overall this lens really drives home how great Voigtlander is doing with these FE lenses. Their designs are fast or exotic, compact, and seem like a much better value than their loxia counterparts.
I what way is it a better package? It's bigger, heavier, and not as sharp at f/8-f/11, and equally sharp from f/2.8 have considerably more CA, and less flare resistance. All factors that are important for landscape work.
Also the Loxia seems to open up the shadows more, and I prefer it's overall rendering.
The f/1.4 is sweet to have although it's of limited use in a wide angle lens especially as it's very unsharp in the corners at f/1.4. Here the GM24 is much better and a lens I would prefer.
So for me it's the other way around ;-)
Best regards
David
fplstudio wrote:
Yeah probably who has the Loxia is not hard pressed to replace it with this CV but if someone is looking to buy one I don’t see reasons to go with the Loxia...the CV is a better overall package for less dollars.
David Cartagena wrote:
I what way is it a better package? It's bigger, heavier, and not as sharp at f/8-f/11, and equally sharp from f/2.8 have considerably more CA, and less flare resistance. All factors that are important for landscape work.
Also the Loxia seems to open up the shadows more, and I prefer it's overall rendering.
The f/1.4 is sweet to have although it's of limited use in a wide angle lens especially as it's very unsharp in the corners at f/1.4. Here the GM24 is much better and a lens I would prefer.
So for me it's the other way around ;-)
Best regards
David
When I look at Fred's tests the CV 21 f/1.4 only has greater CA than the Loxia at apertures wider than f/2.8. This is one of the limitations of using the wider apertures on the CV 21 f/1.4, but when comparing it to the Loxia I do not think it is accurate to say the CV has more CA because at the came apertures it doesn't look like that to me. I would say at all aperture f/2.8 and narrower the CV 21 f/1.4 and the Loxia have similar sharpness but the CV has a bit flatter field. That is what my eyes tell me with Fred's tests and I don't see greater performance for the Loxia at f/8 and f/11. When comparing the lenses I think what one has to consider is whether the slightly flatter field of the CV and the wider aperture performance which is a bit compromised is worth the increase in size. Both are great options.
Steve Spencer wrote:
When I look at Fred's tests the CV 21 f/1.4 only has greater CA than the Loxia at apertures wider than f/2.8. This is one of the limitations of using the wider apertures on the CV 21 f/1.4, but when comparing it to the Loxia I do not think it is accurate to say the CV has more CA because at the came apertures it doesn't look like that to me. I would say at all aperture f/2.8 and narrower the CV 21 f/1.4 and the Loxia have similar sharpness but the CV has a bit flatter field. That is what my eyes tell me with Fred's tests and I don't see greater performance for the Loxia at f/8 and f/11. When comparing the lenses I think what one has to consider is whether the slightly flatter field of the CV and the wider aperture performance which is a bit compromised is worth the increase in size. Both are great options....Show more →
I got my CV two days ago and I prefer the handing and ergo over the Loxia's awkward aperture ring a lot, it is more pleasurable to use and handle. The best way for me to describe it is I like using it and want to use it and have it on my camera.
I have never really enjoyed the using the Loxia's even mounting and dismounting is not fun or the aperture ring. I used it in spite of this because I wanted the color and rendering it provides. The CV provides that now.
I was taking some comparison shots on a tripod with both yesterday and I kept bumping into the focus ring I had spent so much time on focus mag 12x to set when I was adjusting the aperture settings in my comparison.
The shots I took with the CV had incredible sharpness and contrast across the frame at all apertures I am very impressed.
It is hard to knock the Loxia 21 it is one of the most loved e-mount lenses available. but I am selling mine in favor of the CV.
I think which may be in my head that it is easier to MF also but I need to do more tests and very much like the fact that it is faster for low light conditions.
David Cartagena wrote:
I what way is it a better package? It's bigger, heavier, and not as sharp at f/8-f/11, and equally sharp from f/2.8 have considerably more CA, and less flare resistance. All factors that are important for landscape work.
Also the Loxia seems to open up the shadows more, and I prefer it's overall rendering.
The f/1.4 is sweet to have although it's of limited use in a wide angle lens especially as it's very unsharp in the corners at f/1.4. Here the GM24 is much better and a lens I would prefer.
So for me it's the other way around ;-)
Best regards
David
Hey mate it’s quite fun how every post from you here is meant to state the arguable position that Loxia 21 is the better lens.... Take it easy, if the Loxia is your preference good for you. I prefer this CV 21 and generally any CV over Loxia.
